was it over?

[Tetteys Jig 831]

Wasn''t there and haven''t seen it on tv, so...

did marshall pushit over the line or save his blushes?

[Rudolph Hucker 0]

does it matter?

[Canary Pirate 0]

The ball DID cross the line, so a bonus 3 points, magic !

[Pete Raven 276]

Sore loser Burley seems to think so, but then he also thinks it was never a backpass....

[Huddy 0]

I couldnt care less!

Poor old George Burley, couldnt happen to a nicer bloke.

They should have played ''daydream believer'' before kick off today, to get the crowd going with the old burley song.

[Savenell 0]

yer the ball DID definately cross the line

[Buncey 1]

 From where I was sitting, lower N&P with the goal to my left, it looked well over. Howeve niether the linesman or referee could have a clear view, so of course they made the right decision!

[greenTshirt 2]

was right in front of us in the River End.

Not seen it on any replay but at the time I thought the balance of probability was that it was over the line although Marshall did very wel to smother it. Because of that I couldn''t be certain it crossed and even more certainly nor could the linesman or the ref. It would have been harsh to award it and would have been guesswork on the part of the officials. So we had to get the benefit of the doubt.

The question remains is should technology be used. Even then, because of the way Marshall covered the ball, could they be sure. And how much time would it waste?

[CanaryJames 0]

I was behind the goal, and it was a good foot or so over the line. Thanks Mr.Linesman. Should we support the "Work Until You 70" Plan now, as it benefited us having an old lino today.

[cartwheel 0]

yes it was over,but things even themselves out. i mean in the first half at o-o the ref should have sent safri off. giving us a one man advantage. so in the end grant was right the final score read NORWICH 2-SOUTHAMPTON 1 end of story.

[YoungCanary 0]

People on skysports and ive read on a website that it wasnt. Will just have to wait for the Championship tomorrow to see it! unless theres another way to see it before then.

[jetstream 0]

I sit in the City Stand, directly along the goal line and I can tell you that the whole of the ball crossed the whole of the line.Thank goodness for geriatric asst referees (this week, at least) [:D]

[Freddy H 0]

I sit N&P Lower Tier Row N on the 6 yard line, I am

pretty sure it was over the line.  Of the 20 or so people sitting around

me I only heard one chap just behind me say that it was only partly over the

line, the others thought it was a goal.

If it had been Norwich,

I would have been very annoyed that it had not been given, its time for technology

to be used.  Its 2007 not 1977 football is all about big money now,

microchips and proximity readers have been around for years, why can''t they be

installed in all the match balls, goal line, posts and bar; when the ball completely

crosses the goal line / frame a very loud hooter parps and we all know

instantly that its a goal.  Failing that some sort of goal frame cameras, Hawkeye

technology and the 4th official sorts it out.

In fact why not put these ball sensors along all the touch lines, then we know

its a corner, goal kick, throw.  Why not put prox sensors in the players

boots so that we know where they are in relation to other players then offside

decisions could be beeped in the refs ear?  We know that Norwich have this

Pro Training thingy that Dave Carolan uses to find out that Andy Hughes runs

about a lot but was still rubbish (sorry Lee

B!), the cameras can be seen all around the ground, why can''t that be used?

OK now I am on a rant!  Good old blind ref / Lino saved us 3 points bless em!

OTBC

[Pyro Pete 1,944]

Is sit directly in line with the goal line in the Jarrold Stand. From my perspective it was near to impossible to tell if the whole ball had crossed the line, because Marshall had smothered his body around the ball. But it was very close. I would say it wasn''t (but I''m biased).I looked up to see if the linesman was going to give it, but he was still running back to catch up with play. So there was no way he could give it.

[Branston Pickle 3,750]

TBH it didn''t look too conclusive on the tv - the ball was in the air so perspective was lost and I would have actually said it wasn''t over but those in-line say it was....it all suggests that the right decision was made as the officials couldn''t be sure.  But what the hell, who cares - we''ve had them go against us in the past and have had little enough luck recently so it is fair enough - maybe this makes up for the dodgy pen/retake they had against us a season or so back at St Mary''s; that the recipient was Burley makes is all the sweeter.

[ronbol ronbol 0]

I sit in the barclay and from my superb view, it was never over the line!GRANT OUT

[AJ 1,236]

From where I was sitting in the River End, it was in!

The way Marshall just smothered the ball was clever, he just completely covered the ball with his body so nobody could see if it was over or not!

Also made some very good saves in the game, so he deserves the credit!

[Kathy 747]

It wasnt a goal because it was at the River end. Goals are not scored at the River End in competitive matches at Carrow Road. Everyone knows that.

[CJ 0]

I was not at the match but watched the TV replay very carefully. As a fan you would guess I am bias but I am also a ref and asst ref most Saturdays and I would agree with the other posting that said it would have been very difficult for the asst to have given it. He would have been in line with last defender at time of shot and then running back as ball rolled to line. Both views before and after Marshall pounced on it clearly showed the ball was NOT over the line. The question is did he carry it over and then readjust ball afterwards. Impossible to see how he did that as no movement after he caught the ball.

I am also always amazed how some fans interpret over the line. The ball in its entirety has to be over all of the line i.e. the tangent to the curvature of the ball must fall beyond the end edge of the line ( I now difficult to describe). Best way is to get a football place it on edge of say a path and then move it until by standing over the ball you can see edge. Stepping back from the ball most people are amazed how far the ball seems from the edge. In reality it actually means on the pitch you can see the grass ( about 2-3 inches of) between the ball where it touches the ground and the line. You then need to move the ball so you can clearly see it is over the line so you then move it a tad further and then its in!

Oh and as a linesman the goal posts also get in the way too! Given all of that, personally I only give a goal where I am certain it is over the line, the same way I only give a penalty when I am certain it is an infringement in the box. Given that if the ball crossed the line it was hidden from view ( yes including from the Southampton players) it would have been only by inference that the ball crossed the line. I suspect also Marshall was either very clever or knew the ball had not crossed the line as he quickly showed where the ball was rather than staying laying on it. He would have been a magician to have hidden a one foot movement as suggested by one of the messages, believe me you know when its a foot over the line even if the keeper is lying on it!

As a neutral and as a Norwich fan I would say the asst got it right however I agree that its about time technology was tried since as i have indicated its a tough call, and dont even get me going on the offside rule!

[Rudolph Hucker 0]

Like you CJ I have watched this repeatedly on slow motion.

Marshall''s reactions were terrific and he rotated his body around the ball giving no indication of moving it out of goal on the ground. His head was over the ball, he could clearly see the line and was confident enough to pick the ball up vertically from the line.

At key points you can clearly see the goal line but not where the ball is and this indicates it was obscurring the line so not over.

This brilliant reaction IMO negates the original fumble and crosses and kicking aside has made me realise my original assessment of Marshall was a little harsh.

When I first saw the reply on TV I thought ''not in'' and this after reading posters telling me it was and expecting it to be so. Unless the officials are certain the goalkeeper gets the benefit of any doubt.

It doesn''t matter if goals which are in are not given in these circumstances as the score doesn''t reflect the error; however, it does matter when someone like Burley is trying to claim a goal thus implying we have cheated when this is not so.

On the same point it was a backpass, I saw that clearly and Davies was at fault. The ref too had a better game than I originally credited him with.

[ricardo 7,447]

From my seat, Block Q, Upper River End behind the goal it was in.

Lucky escape because at 0-2 I can''t think we would have got anything. I thought Southampton ran out of steam in the the last half hour and we looked much fitter. There was never any danger of losing a goal once we got in front.

A bit different to last year when we always looked vunerable late on.

[yellow blood 0]

Yes, Healy''s 90th minute shot was a good foot over the line...the one against us didn''t look over the line on the tv or at the game to me

[Graham Humphrey 13]

Don''t think it was over the line, Marshall''s a lucky boy though, it was a real heart-in-mouth moment.

[Ivana_rubyatitz 6]

According to the BBC website it could be just a matter of time before this sort of arguement becomes irrelevant:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/6953753.stm

I for one would be all for the introduction of the technology.

[Syteanric 1]

im not a fan of Technology.. during our time in the Premiership Palace hit the bar against Bolton... Andy Gray spent 15 minutes studying it for sky from every angle possible (including a camera mounted inside the goal) and still couldnt tell if it had crossed the line.. how long do u stop the game for?

 Also, if the ball smacks the underside of the bar bounces down and is cleared, the defending team then goes up the field and scores what di u do???in that time u dsicover the 1st shot has corssed the line.. u cant disallow the goal and allow the other one.. it defeats the whole point of having cameras....

 and saw the replay on the championship... on the raised view they had its on the line.. no where near over... their view is pretty conclusive tbh

jas :)

[Pete Raven 276]

Definitely not over the line going by the Championship programme this morning.

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,050]

Jas - Wouldn`t "Hawkeye" give the answer pretty quickly?, or cameras in the goalposts?

[Syteanric 1]

Possibly SOB but then see my post about Bolton and palace above.. Hawkeye is all well and good but they are used in stop -start games wher the umpire/ref stops the game, asks for Hawkeye then watches the monitor.. u could of scored in football in that time.. and a team in full flight about to score themselves getting pulled back is going to be furios uf Hawkeye confirms the ball DIDNT cross the line.

Maybe what they have in Ice hockey, a light that comes on when the ball crosses the line is better than stopping the play?

jas :)

[nutty nigel 7,677]

Why have so many Norwich fans been so quick to say the ball was over the line? I sit in Lower Barclay E and have not seen any TV replays so obviously don''t have a clue. Surely by mid-day on Monday somebody must be able to give an honest answer as to whether we got away with it or not?

 

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Why have so many Norwich fans been so quick to say the ball was over the line? I sit in Lower Barclay E and have not seen any TV replays so obviously don''t have a clue. Surely by mid-day on Monday somebody must be able to give an honest answer as to whether we got away with it or not?

 

[/quote]

It looked over the line from the community stand where I was sitting, but the tv replay the ball is hidden from view. As I remember it marshall fell over the line with the ball and pushed the ball forwards (this happened during the instant that he is covering the ball from the camara''s view.  Hence why we don''t see the ball moving forward on the tv replay and why it never looks over on the tv replay.

It was bloody close either way!